Information structures and information technologies do not develop in isolation. Similarly, the social structures in our society do not develop free from technological influence. The information technology and the social structures in our human society inform and shape each other.

Recently in Ph.D. life, etc. Category

Title
Open Access Repositories in the Cultural Configuration of Disciplines
Applying Actor-Network Theory to Knowledge Production by Astronomers and Philosophers of Science

Abstract
This qualitative study provides an understanding of the role of self-archived disciplinary open access repositories in the cultural configuration of scholarly disciplines. It examines the implications of the technological and organizational layers of access tools and open access repositories and researchers' lived experiences and perceptions layer on researchers' localized knowledge production context and the construction of disciplinary knowledge production contexts. The actor-network theory, which posits that technological and social actors reciprocally affect each other, is applied to compare and contrast the information practices of two groups of researchers: the use of arXiv by astronomers, and the use of PhilSci by philosophers of science. Six astronomers and five philosophers of science were identified through purposeful selection. The interviews with the researchers were conducted over a period of five months, ranging in length between 40-75 minutes. Primary documentary evidence, describing open access repositories and access tools, is also used for the analysis. The findings show that the open access repositories, the access tools, and researchers' individual knowledge production contexts are co-constructed as researchers search, discover and access scholarly artifacts. Open access has impacted researchers' knowledge production by realigning the existing processes and by instigating the emergence of new actors and constructs. Four themes emerge as researchers articulate their perceptions about the value and the role of open access: impact on scholarly process, impact on scholarly output, integration with scholarly context, and democratization of the scholarly discourse. Congruent with the domain-analytic approach, two distinct socio-technological models emerge. Astronomers perceive arXiv as important and critical in their scholarly information practices, with a central role in their discipline. However, philosophers of science perceive PhilSci as having a limited value in their scholarly information practices and rather minimal role in their discipline. The properties of disciplinary cultures, such as the mutual dependence between researchers and the task uncertainty in a specific discipline, are implicated in the appropriation of the open access repositories and access tools at individual and disciplinary level. The socio-technological co-constructionist approach emerges as a viable theoretical and methodological framework to explicate complex socio-technological contexts.

In 'response' to Theories informing my research, I would like to bring to attention another issue of concern regarding the empowering or restrictive properties the tacit and explicit theories have on individual's way of thinking and research.

Sooner or later many of us are guided by set of theories, frameworks and paradigms in our research work, some of them tacit and some explicit. They direct our research within the appropriate and relevant scholarly community, thus increasing the chances for scholarly collaboration and communication with like-minded folks.

However, the same theories, paradigms and frameworks also limit our imagination and innovative thinking, they create the box within which we think and operate. Thus, they can have potentially negative effect by filtering away problems and issues that merit scholarly scrutiny but are not scrutinized because our mode of thinking does not allow them to reach us.

In this sense, the explicit theories and frameworks we subscribe to are perhaps less inhibitive to our abilities to explore and innovate beyond our current interests. We are well aware of the explicit theories, we use them to conduct our research, and we can decide to go beyond.

The tacit theories seem to be more inhibitive than the explicit. Because of their tacit nature they direct our research in a way we might not be aware and thus do not know how to go beyond and expand our mode of thinking.

Certainly, there is a benefit in structured way of thinking and research; its awareness helps us position ourselves and our work within the relevant communities of practice. However, often a times the excessive structureness in our way of thinking might be depriving us of the ability to see various phenomena with a new 'eye'.

How does one go about identifying and discovering his/her tacit theories, frameworks and paradigms?

After few years of quiet from my blog, I finally think I have some time to
write again. Not that I have not been writing for the past two years. I have actually
been writing more but around my qualifying exam and my dissertation proposal. Finally,
after passing my qualifying last year, I'm almost done with my proposal. One
more meeting with my committee and should be ready to start data collections
and work on some preliminary data analysis.

I'll write more about this but my dissertation is about scholar's interaction
with open access repositories. Given that OA is a new phenomena in the
scholarly communication, I thought it would be valuable to understand it in greater
depth.

apophenia: why i'm in academia is a very interesting and thoughtful post by Danah. More or less I could have written the same, I feel the same. Managing and balancing the industry experience and involvement, and pursuing academic path is not easy. But certainly challenging… individuals in such positions can act as catalysts for learning experiences in both directions.

Panel Abstract:
“Digital library development is a field moving from diversity and experimentation to isomorphism and homogenization. As yet characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and new entrants in the field, who serve as sources of innovation and variation, they are seeking to overcome the liability of newness by imitating established practices. The intention of this panel is to use this general framework, to comment on the channels for diffusion of knowledge, especially technology, in the area of digital library development. It will examine how different communities of practice are involved in shaping the process and networks for diffusion of knowledge within and among these communities, and aspects of digital library development in an emerging area of institutional operation in the existing library institutions and the specialty of digital librarianship. Within a general framework of the sociology of culture, the panelists will focus on the following broader issues including the engagement of scholarly networks and the cultures of computer science and library and information science fields in the development process and innovation in the field; involvement of the marketplace; institutional resistance and change; the emerging standards and standards work; the channels of transmission from theory to application; and, what 'commons' exist for the practitioners and those engaged with the theoretical and technology development field. The panelists will reflect on these processes through an empirical study of the diffusion of knowledge, theorizing on the implication of open source software in the development of digital libraries, and the standardization of institutional processes through the effect of metadata and Open Archive Initiative adoption.

"I just revisited phd weblogs which is a collection of PhD students blogging. There are only 170 of us on there and i know that there are a whole lot more. So, if you're an academic blogger and you're reading this, add yourself there. And tell your friends. It's really fun to surf and find out what other folks are researching."

"Oh, and it's a great way of procrastinating when you've read PhD comics so many time that you have half of them memorized."

As
I have mentioned in my previous blog entry regarding my current
statusas
a Ph.D. student, I just finished my coursework towards my doctoral
studies in Information Science (minor in Media Studies) at SCILS –
Rutgers University. My plan going forward is to start a full time
job and continue working on my qualifying exam and dissertation on
part time basis. I would love to concentrate full time on the rest
of my Ph.D. studies, however, my personal situation does not give me
the luxury to do so.

Thus,
by April of this year, just before the semester was about to finish,
I started looking very actively for a full time job (including here
consulting / contracting / or short term projects). It is almost the
end of the summer and I'm still looking for a job. I've had a number
of interviews but was not prepared to hear the reasons why I didn't
get the jobs that I thought and still think I was a good match.

In
continuation, I will try to describe my experiences with the search
process, and would appreciate any comments from fellow readers with
similar experiences and challenges, as well as those that care to
share an advice or point to a resource that can be helpful to
individuals in similar situations.

The
two sides that ought to meet (and do meet) – but recruiters
and HR staff don't seem to see how, where, what and why

Before
I continue, here is a short description of my industry experience
as well my recent academic training as part of my Ph.D. studies. I
have extensive experience as information systems analyst / engineer
/ architect, working with various systems primarily in the
telecommunication industry [more
detailed description].
My deliverables usually have consisted of specifications and
requirements writing in the form of requirement documents used as
inputs to the developing and testing teams, as well as architecture
slides. In addition, the systems analyst position most often
requires one to act as a facilitator between the business / user
side and the technical side of the product lifecycle development.
This role as a facilitator usually requires the understanding of the
'big picture' in order to better asses the feasibility and
deliver-ability of a product or subcomponents (features,
functionalities) in line with the business needs and tasks. As far
as my academic experience is concerned, my interests have evolved
around the interplay between information systems/structures and the
social structures within which information systems are embedded.
More specifically, I'm interested in digital libraries, system
design, open source software, actor-network theory, the concept of
openness, the social construction of IT and IS, etc.

The
challenges

I
believe there is a tremendous and unique value in the conjecture of
the type of industry experience I posses and the type of academic
training I have recently gone through as part of my doctoral
coursework. One would think that HR staff, and recruiting and
consulting companies would be able to see the advantage and be able
to leverage such experience coupled with theoretical / academic
knowledge. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. What follows
are some specific experiences and challenges I have faced in the job
searching process:

Overqualification
/ underqualification. The most frequent comment I hear back from
recruiters and HR folks is that I'm overqualified for the types of
jobs I used to do before (i.e. Systems analysts / eng / architect),
or that I'm not ready yet for the type of jobs that require an
earned Ph.D. While I can understand the 'not ready yet' argument and
it does make sense since I'm not done with my Ph.D. yet, it is hard
to fathom that more education and more knowledge would be a barrier
to finding a job, especially when this education is very closely
related to the previous industry experience. I've tried to make
sense and it could be argued that companies are afraid to loose
individuals who aim at getting their doctoral degrees; this would
make sense if one is looking for a permanent position within a firm.
But, shouldn't the companies be less concerned with retention if the
job is consulting / contract position?

The
wrong time to be looking for job. The additional challenge in my
case I think is that this is the wrong time to be looking for job
since the economy is not what used to be few years ago, and this is
further made harder by the fact that HR folks consider this type of
change as career change. Even though I don't see it that way.

Must
have exact experience. Moving to another industry and away from
telecommunication in order to expand the possibilities is a real
challenge. Companies seem to want an exact experience in every sense
of the word, including here relevant industry experience. Looking at
current job requirements makes you wonder who are they writing those
requirements for. Most of the times it is not possible to get
everything in one individual. I guess companies can do that nowadays
considering the number of people looking for work. It is a managers
job market.

Recruiters
and placement agencies unable to link my industry experience and my
academic training. More than often HR folks concentrate on my
working experiences as a systems analyst forgetting the value I
bring to the table I have gained through my coursework as part of my
doctoral studies. At the end of my resumeI list all of my courses. The following
courses (Human Information Behavior, Experiment and Evaluation in
Information Systems, Quantitative Research Methods, Qualitative
Research Methods, Towards a model of open source digital library
system) are directly relevant to the type of work I have done during
my industry experience, and yet recruiters and HR folks don't seem
to make the link.

Lack
of Information Science / Studies job searching websites and tools.
What are the online resources one can turn to for help? Many sites
related to LIS type of job search list library jobs and lack
substantial listings of Information Science / Studies related job
openings.

Lack
of recruiting and placement agencies who are specialized in placing
professionals with Information Science / Studies backgrounds.
There is a lack of recruiting and placement agencies that can
understand the potential an Information Science / Studies
professional brings to the table. Few agencies I have spoken to have
been helpful, but even they are not able to properly articulate the
benefits an Information Studies professional can bring to a company.

The
industry appears blind to the knowledge and potentials that
Information Studies / Science professionals can bring to the table.
As I have mentioned above, the lack of helpful tools and recruiters
that understand what Information Science / Studies education can do
is perhaps directly related to what appears to be a blind spot in
the industry as far as the abilities and expertise of an Information
Science / Studies professional are concerned. More specifically, the
people (interviewers, managers, recruiters, etc.) I have spoken do
not seem very aware that system design strategies can be enhanced
through various Human Information Behavior studies and thus yield
better systems in the long run. This is even more true for those
systems that directly interface with people and other social
structures in the work place. An effort should be undertaken by
Information Science / Studies school and departments to establish
connections between theory and practice, between theoretical
knowledge and how it can be utilized in practice.

Needless
to say, the above experiences are those that I have encountered,
limited by the information and resources available to me and
performed by my previous experiences, my understanding of the
current job market, my (un)luck with finding the right recruiters
and placement agencies that understand the value of information
Science / Studies doctoral education, and the limited knowledge of
how all things should work especially in such tough and volatile
times.

Why
I wrote this entry?

In
order to help, share and learn from each other, I would love to hear
from others that are in my position or face similar challenges,
especially those that have previous industry experience and are
currently pursuing a doctorate degree in Information Science /
Studies. Even better if I hear from potential employers; here is my
resume.:)

(Update on 9/19/2004: I have accepted an offer and will be starting work in few days.)

Right now I'm concentrating my efforts towards getting ready for my qualifying exam and trying to concentrate further and deeper into the issues I like to treat in my dissertation (obviously the proposal comes first:)).

Not sure if I'll be taking the qualifying exam this coming semester (Fall 2004). If not, then my plans are to take the exam in early Spring 2005.

In the meantime, a lots of reading, reflecting, mental summarizations, re-reading of article that I read early in my coursework, making new connections between theory and practice, further indulging and trying to understand the explicit and implicit theories and frameworks that guide my thinking and research pertinent to my Ph.D. studies, etc.

Similarly to Kylie Veale (in the comments of Dissertation blogs), I also find it interesting and rewarding to write in my blog. Once in a while I go back and read what I have written in the past. It is amazing to find thoughts and ideas that come handy in the present research projects and interests, especially since I'm about to finish my Ph.D. glasswork and embark on my dissertation.

The pseudo-serendipitous discovery in things one has written in the past is not so much of a discovery since you have written it. It is amazing however to try to understand the framework and the mental state present at the time one wrote an earlier blog entry (i.e. the source of the pseudo-serendipitous discovery).

Understanding the implicit and explicit theories of a research article most
often means carefully reading through the article for the explicit theories
stated therein, and also browsing through the bibliography to see who else or
what other theories, frameworks and paradigms have informed the current article.
This also provides an insight about which implicit theories the author
subscribes too. To understand authors fully in this respect, it would require
reading many of their works.

At the beginning of the Ph.D. program I was unaware of my theoretical framework,
or better said, I would have been unable to answer such question if I was asked.
At that time I would have thought that I didn’t really subscribe to any
particular theory, framework or paradigm. One semester after another I struggled
to identify my interests. I wanted to place and find myself within a particular
school of thought. This was further complicated by the fact that information
science as an interdisciplinary field of study is not yet well define by its
theory or paradigm as understood in the traditional sense.

However, as I was writing more and more papers for my coursework, I started
realizing that my writings usually concentrate around the subject of information
artifacts (i.e. information, information structures, and information systems)
and their role in the social structures that utilize them. At this point I
decided to re-read all of my papers, four semesters worth. To my surprise and
delight, I realized that all this time I was not just writing. I was actually
trying to explicate and elaborate (with the language available to me at the
time) on how various information technologies effect the social structures
around them and concurrently are affected by the same. I recognized this theme
throughout my papers.

I also have to complete an independent study which I have already started. This would mean I'll be done with my Ph.D. class work by the end of this semester; than planning for the qualifying exam during the Fall of 2004. :) In the meantime, I’m also working on the dissertation proposal.

A lots of new 'knowledge' (or is it 'information' :)) to learn in this semester.

Next, I would like to demonstrate the naming and the power of the semantic tool with two examples reflecting from my personal experience upon embarking on the Ph.D. program. First, I would like to describe the performative power of the marks I inscribe on the pages of articles and books I read for my classes. Usually, at the start of a new article, more so if the article presents concepts that I perceive unfamiliar, my red pen inscribes all sorts of marks (stars, checks, circles, question marks, exclamation marks, underlining, etc.) with their intended and perceived importance. The first run through the article produces a set of marks placed mostly in the sidelines of article’s pages, each of them with their perceived meaning of what I think is important and necessary for me to master the ideas presented therein, or because I believe that a particular quote will be useful later on. At times I wonder if I’m overdoing with these marks as the more I inscribe they tend to loose their relative significance. The topology of the marks on the pages would have been much different (in relations to each other as well as their quantity) had I had some prior understanding about marks’ meanings. Nevertheless, the point I’m stressing is that the marks tell me different things the next time I look at them for just making sure I have understood a concept or for review purposes. Sometimes I even wonder why have I underlined a certain sentence. At other times I discover that I have missed a certain concept. However, the result is that these entities have performed on my knowledge structure and have also been performed upon themselves, as some of them do not carry the same meaning I attached to them at the time of inscription. The topology in this case would be the article with its marks and also my knowledge structure. However, the article is also part of other topologies, such as the set of articles written by the same author, the set of articles contained in the journal it was published, the disciplines or studies it was intended to perform upon, etc. In my case the marks have performed mostly vertically (affecting my knowledge structure). They probably would not mean much to anyone else, unless I write a page of rules and guidelines describing the marks together with their intentions as I perceived them. But this would be a very hard task because they might not be of much benefit to others given the personal performative nature. (Full article)

"If actual attrition is really around 50 percent, then this is a scandal," says Michael S. Teitelbaum, a program director at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. "It's a serious waste of resources and a terrible waste of time and energy on the part of students."

Quote:"The first thing to realize is that Internet-world is part of reality. The people you correspond with on the network are real people with lives and careers and habits and feelings of their own. Things you say on the net can make you friends or enemies, famous or notorious, included or ostracized. You need to take the electronic part of your life seriously. In particular, you need to think about and consciously choose how you wish to use the network. Regard electronic mail as part of a larger ecology of communication media and genres -- telephone conversations, archival journals and newsletters, professional meetings, paper mail, voice mail, chatting in the hallway, lectures and colloquia, job interviews, visits to other research sites, and so forth -- each with its own attributes and strengths. The relationships among media will probably change and new genres will probably emerge as the technologies evolve, but make sure that you don't harbor the all-too-common fantasy that someday we will live our lives entirely through electronic channels. It's not true."

The most relevant aspect of the engineering courses (my background) is the emphasis on the systems mode of thinking which has helped me tremendously in my present course of study here at SCILS, especially in Information Science.

So far, the challenge has been to build a frame of reference or a mindset through which one is able to see the problems related to information science and the resolutions proposed to resolve them. Personally, I believe that the systems way of thinking is a very insightful and powerful tool, especially because helps you study a problem by identifying the boundaries around it, its scope, what happens within the boundaries, and how the issues with the problem at hand interface with the environment (i.e. with outside of the relevantly defined boundary).

Another challenge for me was to adjust to the statistics methods used in social research. Despite the obvious difference between the statistical results of technical systems and those related to the relation between the independent and dependent variables in social phenomena, the statistics background from my engineering courses has helped me in the quest to identifying the conjecture between statistical analysis of engineering data and data gathered from information science experiments. Another benefit of engineering statistical courses is the ability they provide to better understand the fundamental background of the particular statistical tools, in light of the fact that courses that deal with statistics for social research emphasize mostly on usability and applicability of statistics, and do not necessarily stress enough on the actual derivation of the statistical tools and procedures.

The concepts of interconnectivity of various technical elements within the information and communication systems and the multitude of services they carry almost directly relate (albeit at a different level of application) to various practical communication tools and services that affect the social realm. An information and communication system is not a goal in its own; it is produced and used within the social web of interactions composed of human and non-human entities, or networked actors as suggested by the actor-network theory (ANT) and actor-network methodology. Considering that the actor-network theory considers human and non-human entities/elements in its analysis and methodology, it would be interesting to identify and describe a possible link between the variations and changes at the lowest levels of interactions (i.e. technological) and their potential effect on the interaction at the level between a system as a whole and the user(s).

Through these few reflections, I have attempted to link the experience and knowledge I have obtained from my engineering education and systems analyst/eng experience, with the role they have played so far in my PhD. level classes in Information Science. I hope to have more of these sorts of reflections in the future, as they pop-up in my head. :)

"Examination and analysis of electronic information to evaluate communication processes, content viability, aesthetic and technical factors as well as the quality of information structures. Includes the exploration of information retrieval, information seeking behaviors, and user perspectives and preferences in meeting information needs."

Catalog Description for Organizing Information:

"Introduction to the options and methods for describing and organizing messages, texts, and documents of all types (audio, visual, linguistic, graphic, multimedia) for retrieval. Classification; indexing languages, vocabulary management, and thesauri systems; human and machine techniques; and rationales for decisions about the organization of materials In various contexts. Students apply theory by designing and evaluating an Information retrieval (IR) database."

I hope to learn few things myself from these two courses while working on my Ph.D. coursework. :)

In these two categories I'll be posting comments, ideas, thoughts, and reflections, pertinent to the two classes I'm taking this semester (Fall 2003).

It would be nice to hear if other bloggers are taking similar classes so we can exchange ideas and thoughts, and help each other. :) So far I've identified Edward Bilodeau who will be taking both Qualitative and Quantitative Research classes this semester.

Update (2/1/2004):
I've renamed the above category Quantitative Research Methods into Research Methods, Methodologies, Issues in order to reflect my targeted interest. In this new category I'll be writing about research in general as it pertains to my dissertation interests (for now) and not necessarily only about Quantitative research methods and methodologies.

From purely philosophical perspective it can easily be argued that a Ph.D. is definitely good as you gain more knowledge and more knowledge is better. At least this is the common sense understanding in our human society.

From pragmatic and utilitarian perspective, working in the industry, having a Ph.D. does not necessarily mean more money, better job, better work conditions, or more opportunities. In my work history as information systems analysts, I've met colleagues with Ph.Ds who were performing the same jobs as those with masters.

And yes, it is definitely true that a Ph.D. can be a barrier in getting certain types of positions as it might suggest over-qualification.

Usually, what I sense from discussions with friends and my fellow Ph.D. students, most of those who continue their Ph.D. studies are motivated by factors other than industry work opportunities. Here are some of my thoughts about why I started with Ph.D. studies.

Needless to say, if one aims at academic jobs (i.e. teaching), a Ph.D. is the 'license'.

In these few paragraphs,
I would like to summaries my interests that led towards my decision to
start the Ph.D. program here at SCILS
- Rutgers University.

After finishing my
masters in telecommunication engineering at
Stevens
Institute of Technology in May 1997, I embarked upon a career as
Information Systems Architect / Engineer / Analyst, primarily in the
telecommunication industry. During my masters program at Stevens-Tech I
worked as a teaching assistant and instructor where I came in close
contact with freshman students while teaching the basics of Internet,
HTML, electronics and microprocessors labs, C++, etc. In addition to this
I worked with Engineering Information as content designer and consultant
on their home pages. For further details on my employment history
please see my
resume.

Throughout my
educational and working career, I have been always puzzled by the fact
that many tasks and processes are performed very inefficiently, when it is
almost obvious that there is an efficient or a better way of performing
the same. This becomes even more evident with projects that span across
multiple business units in a particular organization. The lack of
communication and the miscommunication among the participants can be
identified as major obstacles. This is partly because employees keep the
knowledge to themselves believing that if “Knowledge is Power” they
should not share it easily. The other element seemingly results from
the fact that employees do not necessarily know what others around them
know, hence reinventing the wheel all to often. Certainly, an
organization can perform better if it tries to discover and learn what it
actually knows (“If We Just Knew What We Know”) and apply the knowledge
appropriately.

Why a Ph.D. ?
In the attempt to find an answer and study the reasons behind such lack of
communication and the miscommunication among team members (and across
various business units), I came across information technology related
readings dealing with groupware and collaboration tools, online discussion
forums, virtual discussion groups, virtual teams, knowledge management
systems and processes, decision support systems, etc. These tools and
processes were described as capable to play an important role in
discovering, sharing and utilizing the knowledge, experiences and skills,
with the ability to effectively minimize the gap between the knowledge
available for utilization and how much the participants know about its
availability at a particular instance.

Having said the above,
my particular interest at the start of my Ph.D. were directed towards:

The utilization of
information systems and the related information technology tools, and
their impact on individuals, society and organizations.

Knowledge Management
(KM) as a process for discovering, creating and sharing knowledge and
its related use as a tool to drive organizations towards learning
organizations.

The Internet as
information and knowledge exchange medium and its impact on grassroots
activities to further human rights and freedoms around the world by
informing and influencing governments and other relevant international
institutions.

The teaching assistant
(TA) experience from Stevens Institute of Technology added to my desire to
further my education such that I can work in the academia. I liked
teaching, being with the students, answering their questions. The Ph.D.
degree would enable this opportunity and provide the venue for serious
theoretical study.

Why a Ph.D. @ SCILS?After extensive search for a Ph.D. program that would engage me in a
discourse related to the above matters of interest to me, I came to
realize that the Ph.D. program in Information Science at the School of
Communication Information and Library Studies at Rutgers provide versatile
yet specific courses taught by renown faculty in their respective field of
study.

I'm in, what now
(my questions in Fall 2003)?
I guess my main concern is deciding on an area I would like to focus going
forward. Before coming to SCILS (started part time in Fall 2001) and
during the first semester, I was mostly thinking knowledge management and
collaboration tools for knowledge management. While I'm still interested
in knowledge management, in the past few semesters I've been exposed to
many other interesting research problems. The challenge I face now is
deciding on the research problem/area that I would like to continue
further. How does one chose among few competing interests?

One good way of
finding the strengths and revealing the interests that are worth pursuing
further, is to read the papers and research projects written/done for the
previous classes, in order to asses any patterns of interest and
discourses presented in them. If we wrote meaningful papers, there ought
to be some revealing patterns. :)

Research
interests:From the courses I have taken so far (as of Spring 2003), 601, 610,
663, and 612 have helped me discover, identify, and narrow my research
interests. Certainly, the topics covered in the Human Information Behavior
(HIB) and the Seminar in Information Studies class were challenging and
academically most appealing. At this point, it appears that my research
interests are closely related to the type of material covered in the HIB
class. I’m especially interested in the interplay between information
and information systems, and the social structures within which they are
imbedded.

To this extend,
articles and materials related to knowledge management, collaboration,
information systems design, the actor-network theory and methodology, and
social constructionism, were the most illuminative and informative.

I’m looking forward
to further narrow my research interests in the next two semesters (Fall
2003 and Spring 2004).